Paul Ryan -Republican candidate for VP

[cybercoma]

If a Mormom can be accepted (give or take) by the hardline Evangelical base, then it would appear exact religious affiliation is not too important.

But it doesn't. I've seen a number of Baptists claiming that Mormonism is akin to Islam and that they would even go as far as voting for Obama to keep a Mormon out of office.

[cybercoma]

Well, there is definitely a difference between the deficits (one is completely unsustainable), but, then, the Obama deficit isn't really the Obama deficit, so....

This "unsustainable" angle is silly. Of course deficits are unsustainable. Nobody expects that the government will run deficit budgets ad infinitum. Budgets change year to year.

[Smallc]

This "unsustainable" angle is silly. Of course deficits are unsustainable. Nobody expects that the government will run deficit budgets ad infinitum. Budgets change year to year.

But the US has been in deficit for a very long time, and has a huge debt load. That's the difference. It isn't an Obama problem though, and most of the deficit actually comes from Bush policies.

Oh, and a country would run a deficits forever, as long as the debt was growing slower than the economy.

[cybercoma]

But the US has been in deficit for a very long time, and has a huge debt load. That's the difference. It isn't an Obama problem though, and most of the deficit actually comes from Bush policies.

Oh, and a country would run a deficits forever, as long as the debt was growing slower than the economy.

The problem is that the deficits need to match the economy, but not in the way you're suggesting. When the economy is slow (as it is now) the deficits ought to be quite large, when the economy is doing well they should be small or even surpluses. This is practically an economic truism. So why people are calling for austerity in a struggling economy is beyond me. That's precisely when you don't want austerity.

[August1991]

This "unsustainable" angle is silly. Of course deficits are unsustainable. Nobody expects that the government will run deficit budgets ad infinitum. Budgets change year to year.

It is the rise in the federal debt under Obama that is the issue.

Here's a good "unbiased" link.

If you look at the last graph (in the middle of the text) you'll see the rapid growth in federal government debt to GDP ratio under Obama. It is fast approaching the highest point in 1946 at 122% after WWII.

To further understand the issue (and use Bernanke's metaphor), we needed a fireman spraying lots of water around to stop the fire but now we've got a drunken sailor holding the hose and he's still spraying tons of water - while entirely missing the dying embers.

The problem is that the deficits need to match the economy, but not in the way you're suggesting. When the economy is slow (as it is now) the deficits ought to be quite large, when the economy is doing well they should be small or even surpluses. This is practically an economic truism. So why people are calling for austerity in a struggling economy is beyond me. That's precisely when you don't want austerity.

I tend to agree with you cybercoma but here's what scares me. Smart investors can rarely, consistently time the market. (Time the market means to sell when it's high and buy when it's low.) I doubt very much if politicians/bureaucrats can do much better - despite being able to control the "market".

You write: "When the economy is slow (as it is now) the deficits ought to be quite large... " Implicitly, you believe that politicians/bureaucrats know how to time the economy. It ain't so simple. The economy is all of us and we're all people who learn.

Edited August 16, 2012 by August1991

[Smallc]

The problem is that the deficits need to match the economy, but not in the way you're suggesting.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with your premise. What I'm saying is, that averaged out over time, a country could run perpetual deficits, as long as the economy, overall, grows at a faster pace than the debt. The debt to GDP ratio can actually get better and better (and by extension, the country's ability to handle the debt load), with a country running deficits every year.

[Shady]

It is the rise in the federal debt under Obama that is the issue.

Here's a good "unbiased" link.

If you look at the last graph (in the middle of the text) you'll see the rapid growth in federal government debt to GDP ratio under Obama. It is fast approaching the highest point in 1946 at 122% after WWII.

Exactly. And Obama has only made the future fiscal problems even worse. In the midst of a bad economy, and record deficits, and already unsustainable entitlement programs, he's added a new entitlement, Obamacare. Add to that 12,000 new recipients are added to Medicare EACH DAY! Add to that a similar number for Social Security. But now, there's only 3 workers for every retiree. There used to be 10-12 workers for every retiree when the program began. In another few years there will be only 1 worker, for every retiree.

You CANNOT raise taxes enough to pay for all of that without reforming the programs themselves. Unless of course you wanted to completely cripple the economy, which would send revenues plunging anyways. That's why Paul Ryan's proposals at least get the ball rolling in terms of the discussion and debate on how to go about solving this issue.

This is how it's suppose to work. Ryan proposes his plan. Democrats propose theirs. And you meet somewhere in the middle. But right now, Democrats have offered absolutely no plan. They just sit on the sidelines criticizing every Republican proposal.

This conversation between Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan was some forshadowing...

[j44]

You CANNOT raise taxes enough to pay for all of that without reforming the programs themselves. Unless of course you wanted to completely cripple the economy, which would send revenues plunging anyways. That's why Paul Ryan's proposals at least get the ball rolling in terms of the discussion and debate on how to go about solving this issue.

This is how it's suppose to work. Ryan proposes his plan. Democrats propose theirs. And you meet somewhere in the middle. But right now, Democrats have offered absolutely no plan. They just sit on the sidelines criticizing every Republican proposal.

The crippled economy and the corresponding downturn in revenue is what happened with Obama. I'm obviously not saying he didn't spend and spend but.....

And there have been proposals in the middle. But the GOP didn't want compromise after shellacking Obama and Democrats wanted to run on 'we will keep your social programs.'

Both sides are clearly to blame. And I know I'm alone in this but I think both sides (or one side) will work something out before all goes to hell (more).

[jbg]

Unfortunately for you, Reagan never said deficits don't matter. Krugy did though. Unfortunately for you, Reagan's deficits were a small fraction of what the current king of deficits are. Obama makes everybody else look like amateurs!

ObamaCare's tax penalty was largely designed to plug that deficit. He's definitely the king of tax and spend, to benefit his voters.

[cybercoma]

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with your premise. What I'm saying is, that averaged out over time, a country could run perpetual deficits, as long as the economy, overall, grows at a faster pace than the debt. The debt to GDP ratio can actually get better and better (and by extension, the country's ability to handle the debt load), with a country running deficits every year.

Oh yeah. Absolutely. If you make $20,000/year having $10,000 of debt is troublesome. If you make $200,000/year and only have $10,000 of debt, you're in pretty damn good shape.

[Michael Hardner]

But now, there's only 3 workers for every retiree. There used to be 10-12 workers for every retiree when the program began. In another few years there will be only 1 worker, for every retiree.

You CANNOT raise taxes enough to pay for all of that without reforming the programs themselves.

Medicare, though, is funded by past payments. And although there is talk that it "will run out" when exactly is the date based on current payments and population growth ?

These programs weren't designed to have generations pay into them and get nothing back.

[Shady]

Medicare, though, is funded by past payments. And although there is talk that it "will run out" when exactly is the date based on current payments and population growth ?

These programs weren't designed to have generations pay into them and get nothing back.

No, it's funded by past and current Medicare taxes. But it's all part of the general fund. There's no actual separate Medicare account. The Medicare trustees report states 11 years when the program will be insolvent. I agree, that's why proposed changes are not to effect anyone over 55. If you've paid into the program your whole life and have organized retirement on the promises made by government, nothing should change.

[punked]

No, it's funded by past and current Medicare taxes. But it's all part of the general fund. There's no actual separate Medicare account. The Medicare trustees report states 11 years when the program will be insolvent. I agree, that's why proposed changes are not to effect anyone over 55. If you've paid into the program your whole life and have organized retirement on the promises made by government, nothing should change.

WONT HAPPEN. Once you take Medicare way from those under 55 they will vote to get rid of it for those over 55. It has to be an all or none solution. Only an idiot would think people under 55 would tolerate a two teared system where the baby boomers get to live for free off those who are still working and paying taxes.

BTW the AP is reporting Mitt Romney's Medicare plan would make Medicare insolvent before his first term was even over. Giving the new President Romney very little time to pass his Medicare plan though a Senate where Democrats WILL HAVE AT THE VERY least a Filibuster. However Obama's plan gives Medicare more then a decade (which might be the amount of time you need considering it takes 2 years to raise the debt ceiling something everyone agrees on).

Edited August 16, 2012 by punked

[BubberMiley]

Only an idiot would think people under 55 would tolerate a two teared system where the baby boomers get to live for free off those who are still working and paying taxes.

Harper is currently doing that with OAS. Those born after 1962, who've paid on average way more than the baby boomers did because premiums went way up a few years ago, will be SOL.

[punked]

Harper is currently doing that with OAS. Those born after 1962, who've paid on average way more than the baby boomers did because premiums went way up a few years ago, will be SOL.

But we are all still going to get OAS and there will be an election fought on that decision for sure. Here what Romney plans on doing is giving free Health care to the boomers and telling everyone else "I'm going to give you a 10% off coupon for you to get your own insurance which you will then pay for". If that happens people under 55 aren't going to be to happy they have to pay for free healthcare for those over 55 even if those over 55 paid into all their life. I am willing bet then republican start chipping away at those over 55 to. Until no one gets health care.

If people in the US fall for that well then they have what is coming to them don't they?

[Shady]

But we are all still going to get OAS and there will be an election fought on that decision for sure. Here what Romney plans on doing is giving free Health care to the boomers and telling everyone else "I'm going to give you a 10% off coupon for you to get your own insurance which you will then pay for".

That's complete sophistry. Ryan's proposal offers future Medicare recipients the same plan as federal employees use now. Oh the horror, the horror! You're ridiculous punked. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Shady]

Anyways, back the orginal purpose of the thread, is Ryan a good VP pick or not.

CNN Electoral Map: Wisconsin moves from Obama to "toss up"

CNN

If Obama can't hold Wisconsin, he's finished.

[punked]

Anyways, back the orginal purpose of the thread, is Ryan a good VP pick or not.

If Obama can't hold Wisconsin, he's finished.

They moved it to toss up because OBAMA HAS A 4 POINT LEAD. If this is all Romney can get then his VP was terrible. What do you ask of your VP? That they deliver their state. That is all. He better send Ryan home he has some work to do.

[punked]

That's complete sophistry. Ryan's proposal offers future Medicare recipients the same plan as federal employees use now. Oh the horror, the horror! You're ridiculous punked. Absolutely ridiculous.

Oh I get it. I saw Mitt explain it today on a whiteboard. Politico reported a whiteboard with one single detail on it.

[Shady]

They moved it to toss up because OBAMA HAS A 4 POINT LEAD. If this is all Romney can get then his VP was terrible. What do you ask of your VP? That they deliver their state. That is all. He better send Ryan home he has some work to do.

Yep, a 4 point lead with an over sample of Democrats in the poll.

[Bitsy]

Take a second look at Ryan..........

First, Ryan is not a deficit hawk, he voted in support of Bush’s spending spree.

Second, Ryan was an Any Rand devotee; she was required reading for his staff and interns until the Catholic church took issue with his budget plan, calling it immoral and questioning Ryan following the philosophy of Ayn Ryan, an atheist, instead of Jesus. So now, she is no longer his favorite philosopher and his staff doesn’t have to read her books. How do you say flip flop?

Third, if you agree with the GOP war on women, Ryan is the man for you.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/08/15/paul-ryan-and-the-war-on-women/

Fourth, Ryan was delighted with Obama’s stimulus, well, at least the part he was able to get his hands on.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/13/wisconsin/49GliKPpjP9Y1YkvNgXaMN/story.html

[Shady]

Take a second look at Ryan..........

First, Ryan is not a deficit hawk, he voted in support of Bush’s spending spree.

Yes, some of it. At least he's putting serious ideas out there to reform programs, and balance the budget. If you think Ryan voted for a lot of spending, you should see the spending Obama signed!!!!

Second, Ryan was an Any Rand devotee

Is she anything like Rev. Wright and Saul Alinsky?

Third, if you agree with the GOP war on women, Ryan is the man for you.

There is not war on women. There is however, a war on religious freedom.

Fourth, Ryan was delighted with Obama’s stimulus, well, at least the part he was able to get his hands on.

Reading from your link, it sounds like it was a fairly smart move. He does have constituents to represent.

The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds -- one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show

That still doesn't dispute the fact that Obama's stimulus wasn't targeted, and much of it was wasteful, and unimpactful to the economy.

Wow, this Ryan guy seems a little so-so. However, this Obama guy seems ten times worse!

[Bitsy]

Yes, some of it. At least he's putting serious ideas out there to reform programs, and balance the budget. If you think Ryan voted for a lot of spending, you should see the spending Obama signed!!!!

I have and according Marketwatch, Obama is “tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Is she anything like Rev. Wright and Saul Alinsky?

No, she was for the 1 percenters, not the common man.

There is not war on women. There is however, a war on religious freedom.

Shady, I have read much of your nonsense about America but this one is beyond the pale. Women are having rights taken away from them by the religious right that control many of our state houses, and the House of Republicans is following suit. I would ask you what freedoms the religious right have lost? I can tell you what rights we women are losing.

Reading from your link, it sounds like it was a fairly smart move. He does have constituents to represent

I , agree, it was a smart move, just don’t be a weasel about it,man up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57494878-503544/ryan-denies-requesting-stimulus-funds/

That still doesn't dispute the fact that Obama's stimulus wasn't targeted, and much of it was wasteful, and unimpactful to the economy.

Since you don’t want to take Ryan’s word for it....try this one on.

When it comes to the Recovery Act, the facts are on Obama's side.

For starters, there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession. America's top economic forecasters -- Macroeconomic Advisers, Moody's Economy.com, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the Congressional Budget Office -- agree that it increased GDP at least 2 percentage points, the difference between contraction and growth, and saved or created about 2.5 million jobs. The concept of "saved or created" has inspired a lot of sarcasm -- Obama joked after his 2009 Thanksgiving pardon that he had just saved or created four turkeys -- but it simply means 2.5 million more people would have been jobless without the Recovery Act. The unemployment rate might still be in the double digits.

Of course, as Obama's critics on the left and right correctly point out, the 8 percent U.S. jobless rate is still terribly high. And there's no way to run a double-blind study of an alternative U.S. economy without the stimulus, so there's no smoking gun to prove the stimulus launched a recovery. But the ballistics certainly match. The economy shrank at a Depression-level rate in the fourth quarter of 2008, and job losses peaked in January 2009. After the stimulus bill passed in February, however, output had its second-biggest quarterly improvement in 25 years, and employment had its biggest quarterly improvement in 30 years. The recession officially ended that June. A Washington Post review of Recovery Act studies found six that showed a positive economic effect versus one useful study (by prominent Republican economist John B. Taylor) that concluded the stimulus failed -- and critics noted that Taylor's data just as easily support the conclusion that the stimulus was too small...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/think_again_obamas_new_deal?page=0,0

Wow, this Ryan guy seems a little so-so. However, this Obama guy seems ten times worse!

Depends upon one’s view.

[jbg]

These programs weren't designed to have generations pay into them and get nothing back.

Ask Bernie Madoff's investors how that feels.

[Michael Hardner]

Not even close. 300 million citizens vs a flim flam man.